Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Another Blow to Free Speech

David Cole, 39 Ways to Limit Free Speech.

Seventeen and a half years for translating a document? Granted, it’s an extremist text. Among the “39 ways” it advocates include “Truthfully Ask Allah for Martyrdom,” “Go for Jihad Yourself,” “Giving Shelter to the Mujahedin,” and “Have Enmity Towards the Disbelievers.” (Other “ways to serve,” however, include, “Learn to Swim and Ride Horses,” “Get Physically Fit,” “Stand in Opposition to the Disbelievers,” and “Expose the Hypocrites and Traitors.”) But surely we have not come to the point where we lock people up for nearly two decades for translating a widely available document? After all, news organizations and scholars routinely translate and publicize jihadist texts; think, for example, of the many reports about messages from Osama bin Laden.

In 2009, Tarek Mehanna, who has no prior criminal record, was arrested and placed in maximum security confinement on “terrorism” charges. The case against him rested on allegations that as a 21-year old he had traveled with friends to Yemen in 2004 in an unsuccessful search for a jihadist training camp in order to fight in Iraq, and that he had translated several jihadist tracts and videos into English for distribution on the Internet, allegedly to spur readers on to jihad. After a two-month trial, he was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. The jury did not specify whether it found him guilty for his aborted trip to Yemen—which resulted in no known contacts with jihadists—or for his translations, so under established law, the conviction cannot stand unless it’s permissible to penalize him for his speech. Mehanna is appealing.

Under traditional (read “pre-9/11”) First Amendment doctrine, Mehanna could not have been convicted even if he had written “39 Ways” himself, unless the government could shoulder the heavy burden of demonstrating that the document was “intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action,” a standard virtually impossible to meet for written texts. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established that standard in ruling that the First Amendment protected a Ku Klux Klansman who made a speech to a Klan gathering advocating “revengeance” against “niggers” and “Jews.” It did so only after years of experience with federal and state governments using laws prohibiting advocacy of crime as a tool to target political dissidents (anarchists, anti-war protesters, and Communists, to name a few).

But in Mehanna’s case, the government never tried to satisfy that standard. It didn’t show that any violent act was caused by the document or its translation, much less that Mehanna intended to incite imminent criminal conduct and was likely, through the translation, to do so. In fact, it accused Mehanna of no violent act of any kind. Instead, the prosecutor successfully argued that Mehanna’s translation was intended to aid al-Qaeda, by inspiring readers to pursue jihad themselves, and therefore constituted “material support” to a “terrorist organization.”

The government provided no evidence that Mehanna ever met or communicated with anyone from al-Qaeda. Nor did it demonstrate that the translation was sent to al-Qaeda. (It was posted by an online publisher , Al-Tibyan Publications, that has not been designated as a part of or a front for al-Qaeda). It did not even claim that the “39 Ways” was written by al-Qaeda. The prosecution offered plenty of evidence that in Internet chat rooms Mehanna expressed admiration for the group’s ideology, and for Osama bin Laden in particular. But can one provide “material support” to a group with which one has never communicated?

If this had been the rule back then, I could imagine some people wanting to extend the logic to shut down domestic writing about cryptography back in the early 90s. Because that is what some of them were saying — that spreading crypto around was a way to aid the Four Horsemen of the Infocopalypse: drug dealers, pornographers, pedophiles and terrorists. At the time the terrorists were the tail, not the dog, but times change quickly.

(When I grow up, I want to write for the New York Review of Books.)

Posted in Civil Liberties, Cryptography | 1 Comment

Securing Gmail (Updated)

Coding Horror, Make Your Email Hacker Proof has lots of good advice about how to secure your Gmail account.

This is all good advice, even if two-factor authentication is not a panacea.

Plus, when you print out that last-ditch backup paper to put in your wallet…don’t label it. Why make it easy for the guy who steals your wallet?

Update: A friend writes,

I followed the instructions, first on the desktop.

Then, it locked out my Gmail account on my iPhone, because I need to do one more step since smartphones “apps” cannot ask for verification, only a password.

(That part is missing in this “Coding Error – Make your Email Hacker Proof” article because it is only for the desktop. If you use Gmail also on your mobile device, you need to do the below):

So I read further and found that you need to the 2 step authoriztion by following these steps (watch the video).

This gives you a long “application specific password” which is different from your password you use when you login to Gmail from a browser on a desktop (not your mobile device). You only need to type it in once.

Now my Gmail works on my iPhone. Terrific!

Posted in Internet, Sufficiently Advanced Technology | Comments Off on Securing Gmail (Updated)

UM Law Review Offers Expedited Article Reviews April 18-27

The newly minted editors of the University of Miami Law Review are offering an expedited review system for authors willing to commit to accepting publication offers:

The University of Miami Law Review will be offering expedited review of articles to be published in Volume 67.

Articles submitted between April 18 and April 27 will be evaluated by May 4th.

By submitting the article during this window, authors agree to accept publication offers should one be extended.

Any articles accepted through this expedited review will be published in Volume 67.

If you have an article that would like to submit, please e-mail a copy of the article, CV, and cover letter to lawreview@students.law.miami.edu with the subject line “Volume 67 Expedited Review.”

Posted in U.Miami | Comments Off on UM Law Review Offers Expedited Article Reviews April 18-27

Income Inequality 101

John Cassidy in The New Yorker, Inequality 101: The Picket Fence and the Staircase.

Nothing you shouldn’t already know, but it is very concise and clear and it can’t be said too often: US inequality is at a historically high level, and higher than in most of our allies. Plus social mobility is relatively low both temporally and compared to other democracies.

Note, though, that the article is primarily about income inequality. There is also the issue of wealth inequality, which is the cumulative effect of this trend. Maybe that’s the 102 course.

Posted in Econ & Money | 11 Comments

Henderson ♥ LWOW

Bill Henderson’s The Legal Whiteboard: What is Law Without Walls? Why does it matter? is a paean to UM Law Prof Michele DeStepano‘s innovative Law Without Walls program.

Does it scale?

Posted in Law School, U.Miami | 2 Comments

We Robot Web Site Down Temporarily (FIXED) (UNFixed) (Fixed Again)

The We Robot 2012 website is down temporarily due to a hardware failure. I’m assured by IT that it will be back up in 2-4 hours.

Update (2:15pm): All fixed now.

Update2 (4pm): We’re down again. I gather there was a second hardware fault, and the new part won’t be in until tomorrow. Terrible timing.

Update3 (4/14/12 2:30pm). Back up! IT thinks it’s all OK now.

Posted in Robots | Comments Off on We Robot Web Site Down Temporarily (FIXED) (UNFixed) (Fixed Again)